I took a few minutes to reply and point out some things that may not have occurred to the Obamacare fan, who said he currently enjoys treatment from a wide variety of places, highly reputable doctors and hardly ever pays a co-pay fee.

I don't doubt there are some doctors who stand to profit under Obamacare. Most won't. But the expansion of Medicaid will result in many doctors refusing to accept patients because government payments are too low. Doctors and hospitals that continue to accept Medicaid (Medi-Cal in our state) necessarily will have to shift their increased costs for accepting lower fees to increased costs for patients on Medicare, private insurance and those who pay cash.

That's inevitable unless you expect them all to take pay cuts. There's no free lunch.

While that is happening, states that agree to Medicaid expansion also will be pushed closer to insolvancy because accepting the federal money requires them to spend about an equal amount of their own money. By vastly expanding eligibility, it will vastly expand their Medicaid costs, which every year are a larger percentage of their general fund budgets.

When our president, a, ahem, constitutional scholar, berated the court for having the audacity to consider overturning an unconstitutional law, he implied justices should think twice before doing such an unprecedented thing.

Of course, Barack Obama was revealing himself to be anything but a constitutional scholar.

A mere appellate court judge got so miffed he ordered the Obama Administration to submit a three-page, single-spaced paper today explaining how judicial review is something the court has the authority to do.

So, Eric Holder, who currently holds the position of Attorney General in the admnistration, submitted the letter.

Obamacare is a step, albeit a big step, in that direction. So, what would it be like to put the government in charge of your health care? Isn't that British system wonderful? Not exactly. But George Orwell would recognize it.

"An elderly woman was ordered to find a new GP because the 'carbon footprint' of her two-mile round trips to the surgery where she had been treated for 30 years was too large," reports the Telegraph.

Don't read to much into this, but there may be a hint of what's to come in this exchange today, the second day of questioning by Supreme Court justices in the Obamacare hearings:

"Justice Anthony Kennedy told lawyers defending the law that the government as a 'heavy burden of justification' to prove that the government can require citizens to purchase a service," reports the Wall Street Journal. "Several justices' questions compared the individual mandate to a hypothetical mandate to buy burial services."

Can the government force you to buy burial services? Seems absurd on the face of it, no?

And this was promising: Kennedy said the insurance mandate changes the relationship between the federal government and individual citizens “in a fundamental way.”

There are so many things wrong with Obamacare, it's a wonder we've reached a point where so many people don't see the problems. Or perhaps they just refuse to, hm?

Next week there will be arguments before the Supreme Court on whether it's constitutionally within the government's power to dictate to private people that they must buy private products from private providers.

Back in the day, we'd say that was a transaction for all those private parties to decide. We've come a long way, indeed.

One thing not likely to come up in next week's legal arguments is what a bad idea Obamacare is, irrespective of its constitutionality. But Supreme Court justices don't concern themselves with good and bad ideas, just whether they are constitutional. At least for now they don't.

But consider that Obamacare was supposed to provide immediate positive results for 32 million Americans without health insurance. The truth is, according to the Washington Post's Factcheck.org:

By 51-48 the Senate today killed the amendment to allow employers to refuse to cover health services when it conflicts with religious convictions, giving the Obama administration another victory in its steady march to undermine constitutional rights with administrative mandates.

The amendment's author, Sen Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), predicted that the Supreme Court might have the final say by striking down the Obama Administration's diktat.

“This issue will not go away unless the administration takes it away by giving people of faith those First Amendment protections” to refuse to cover services if they have moral or religious objections, Politico quoted Blunt saying.

The amendment was an attempt to ensure religious-affiliated employers wouldn't have to cover contraceptives or other products that conflict with their religious beliefs.

Gee, who knew? Gallup says 72 percent of Americans think ObamaCare's diktat that you must buy health insurance or pay a fine is unconstitutional.

Perhaps more stunning is that 28 percent of Americans don't think so.

When in the devolution of this great nation did we reach the point where anyone imagined it was OK for the government to dictate what you must or must not do when doing otherwise doesn't hurt someone else? If you say it began with that Democrat FDR, you haven't gone back far enough. Abe Lincoln, that Republican, is a better starting place for the over-reaching of federal government. Or did you miss that part about his income tax and violations of habeas corpus?

President Barack Obama has been hammered lately over his health mandate that every employer must provide insurance coverage for contraception, abortifacients and even sterilization, things many religious people find to be sinful, according to the tenets of their faith.

As our editorial today points out, this is an egregious violation of First Amendment guarantees to the exercise of religious beliefs when the state demands people act against their beliefs. The White House today has suggested a compromise, which is transparently absurd.

"Under the new plan put forward by the White House health insurance companies, rather than the employer, will be required to offer contraception directly to employees of religious-linked institutions if requested," reports the BBC.

This, of course, doesn't address the objection - it merely attempts to obfuscate and distance the problem.